User:Ojewell12/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Justin Smith Morrill

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this article because I am interested in the land-grant university system, specifically during the 1800s. Justin S. Morrill was the representative who first proposed the Morrill Act of 1862, an act that would grant lands to states for seed money so they could fund colleges. Without his contribution, the land-grant system of higher education in America may not have existed. My first impression of this article is that some of the sections seem to have less content then others -- there is a noticeable imbalance. The entire section under "Justin Smith Morrill" didn't seem to have any other sources cited besides links to other Wiki Pages which I thought was a bit odd. I also think that the "legacy" section was poorly written. It felt like reading a bunch of bullet points that didn't connect to each other. Most of the sources looked credible, some looked a little bias, and some presented an error when I tried to open the link.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Lead section:


 * The lead section had a strong introductory sentence that provided a good overview of who Justin S. Morrill was and what he accomplished in government.
 * The lead section has a box of contents which lay out what the rest of the Wiki Page will talk about.
 * The lead provides a strong overview of Justin S. Morrill and doesn't stray from the topic.
 * I think that the lead does an exemplary job of being both detailed and concise. There isn't too much information, but nothing is left out.
 * My main critique of this section is that there is no sourcing. There are a plethora of Wiki links that lead to other Wiki pages, but there are no citations provided for any of the facts stated. The only source that is provided opens up to a 404 bad getaway.
 * Another critique I have for this section is some of the sentences are worded weird, for example "Originally a Whig, after that party became defunct Morrill was one of the founders of the Republican Party." I think the syntax in a lot of the lead section sentences were not as clear as they could be due to the way they were structured.

Content:


 * I think that all of the content in this Wiki article is relevant to Justin S. Morrill.
 * Early Life section:
 * I think this section was a little scarce. There was not enough relevant information about his early life.
 * Similar to the lead section, there were some sentences that were worded weird. I had to go back and read some sentences a few times to capture what they were saying.
 * Talks about Judge Harris's daughter, which is not very relevant to Morrill's early life whatsoever. Also talked about Portus Baxter and how he was influenced by Morrill, which doesn't really tie in to Morrill's early life.
 * Sourcing was present, and various sources were used in this section.
 * Congressional Career Section:
 * I think this section had a good overview of the positions Morrill served in congress, however, the overview felt a bit brief.
 * All of the facts in this section, however, were pulled from the same source. No sourcing variation whatsoever.
 * There was a fact stated that wasn't backed up by any evidence.
 * Legislation Section:
 * Provides a large quote and no sourcing.
 * Many facts not backed up with sourcing.
 * Ends very abruptly.
 * Some of the source links open up an error page.
 * Very choppy overall, yet some of the sentences were way too wordy.
 * The largest part of this section was a quote from Morrill about the Morrill Act, the rest of the information didn't get very much attention.
 * Personal Section:
 * I think the "personal," section was a little bit redundant. Some of the information in the personal section was already presented in the lead section.
 * Further, the "personal" section is extremely short and choppy, and mostly talks about Morrill's children. The section feels incomplete.
 * There are some facts stated, yet no sourcing.
 * Legacy Section:
 * The legacy section doesn't provide much context, it just lists a few places that Morrill was honored.
 * This section lacks an introductory sentence and it ends very abruptly.
 * I don't think this section added much to the Wiki page, and could be revised.
 * There was decent sourcing in this section, but one of the sources (35) opened up to a bad getaway, so you cannot access the source.
 * Source 33 is not very credible.
 * Source 30 also opens up an error page when you click on the source.
 * Overall this section does not have great sourcing, doesn't provide as much context/information as it should, and fails to provide the same amount of detail that the other sections do.

Tone and Balance:


 * I would argue that this Wiki page establishes a very neutral tone.
 * Does a good job presenting facts (although a lot of these facts are not backed up with evidence), but there doesn't seem to be any bias or use of persuasion.

Organization and Writing Quality:


 * I would argue that the overall organization of the page is fine -- each key point has it's own section and they don't really bleed into each other.
 * I argue that the writing quality is a little poor -- there were many run on sentences and a lot of sentences that did not make sense.
 * You could tell that the Wiki user wad trying too hard not to plagiarize so the sentences were wordy and structured weirdly.

Images and Media:


 * There are five images on this page.
 * one of Justin Morrill himself
 * another of Morrill during his congressional career
 * one of Morrill Hall at Iowa State University
 * one of his burial chamber
 * one of the Morrill Homestead
 * All of the images were sourced correctly or were public domain.
 * Images were visually appealing and a good addition to the page.
 * Images are well captioned.

Talk Page Discussion:


 * Other Wiki users also noticed the lack of sourcing.
 * The article has been rated C-Class, which means it is missing important information, editing is needed to close gaps, has some relevant and reliable sources, but needs more and needs to asses some of the sources provided.
 * Other Wiki users stated that there was incorrect information on the page.
 * the article is supported by WikiProject Vermont.

Sources and References:


 * 4 of the sources opened up to an error link.
 * Most of the sources are scholarly articles, some are less credible sources.
 * The sourcing throughout the article is not very strong. A lot of facts were not sourced.
 * A lot of the sources are not current and are from the 1900s.

Overall status:


 * I think this page is in dire need of revisions.
 * It is clear that the sourcing is not done very well -- some sourcing is not present, some links do not work, and a few of the sources are not very credible.
 * There is incorrect information on the Wiki page.
 * Some of the sections are not well done -- too brief, choppy, not backed up with evidence, and doesn't contain enough relevant information.